Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010077532023 2025:GAU-AS:4850 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2130/2023 DIRU CHETIA S/O- LATE PURNANANDA CHETIA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAMTI CHARIALI, KHANIKAR GAON, P.O. AND P.S.- NAMATI, PIN- 784684, DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM CUM CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ( W AND S) ASSAM GUWAHATI ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7. 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI. 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SIVASAGAR DISTRICT ASSAM. 5:THE COMMANDANT Page No.# 2/7 25TH APBN LIGIRIPUKHURI NAZIRA SIVASAGAR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A SARMA, MR J P CHAUHAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 23.04.2025 Heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Chakravarty, learned Jr. Government Advocate for the State respondents. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking direction for reconsideration of the petitioner’s case for appointment on compassionate ground. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the father of the petitioner, i.e., Late Purnananda Chetia, who was working as Havildar in the Office of the Commandant 25th Assam Police (ONGC) Battalion, Ligiripukhuri, Nazira, Sivasagar, Assam having died in harness on 07.05.2014, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground. Thereafter, the claim of the petitioner was placed before the District Level Committee (DLC), wherein the DLC in its meeting held on 27.04.2015 rejected the claim of the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner is not 18 years of age. Thereafter, various Page No.# 3/7 representations have been filed and the same having not brought any fruitful result the present petition has been filed. 4. Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely because the petitioner was not a major at the time of the death of his father would not disentitle him for appointment on compassionate ground. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relied upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh Nath Vs. the State of Assam & 8 Ors., WP(C) 3290/2020. 5. Per contra, Mr. A. Chakravarty, learned Jr. Government Advocate submits that the DLC having rejected the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that he was not a major at the time of making the application warrants no interference from this Court. He further submits that there cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major and hence, the writ petition is devoid of any merit whatsoever. In support of the aforesaid submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in (2000) Vol. 7 SCC at Page 192. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on record. I have also considered the case laws cited at the Bar. 7. It appears that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 07.05.2014. It appears that the application filed by the petitioner for appointment on Page No.# 4/7 compassionate ground was rejected by the DLC in its meeting held on 27.04.2015. Relevant portions of the aforesaid DLC minutes reads as hereunder- “13. O/o the Commandant, 25" APBn (ONGC). Ligiri Pukhuri Total 5 nos. of proposals were received from the Commandant, 25th APBn(ONGC) Ligiri Pukhuri for the post of AB Constable. The proposal of Sri Pankaj Das was found eligible to be considered against 119 (one hundred & nine) nos. of vacancies for the year 2012-13. Another 2 (two) nos. of proposals in respect of Sri Suraj Naidang and Miss Manjula Mohan were found eligible for consideration against 44(forty four) nos. of vacancies for the year 2013-14. The proposal of Mrs. Rekhamoni Baruah Buragohain for the post of AB Constable couldn't be taken for consideration as she exceeded the maximum age limit of 25 years (Her date of birth is 13.01.1987). Likewise, the proposal of Sri Diru Chetia couldn't be considered due to below age, i.e. below 18 years. These were as per age criteria in the advertisement published on 24.12.2014 by the State Level Police Recruitment Board, Assam.” 8. Reading of the aforesaid, it appears that the claim of the petitioner could not be considered as he was below age. It further appears that as per the advertisement published on 24.12.2014, one has to be above 18 years of age to be qualified for appointment to the subject post. It appears that thereafter the petitioner filed representation before the respondent authorities for reconsidering the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on 21.01.2023. It further appears that thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed on 05.04.2023 seeking reconsideration for the petitioner’s case for appointment on compassionate ground. It is settled law that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The object of providing such appointment on compassionate ground in the event of the earning member of the family dies in harness is for meeting the immediate unexpected hardship, which is faced by the family by reason of such death. It has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court that when an appointment is made on compassionate grounds, it should be kept confined only to the Page No.# 5/7 purpose it seeks to achieve. In other words, the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground is not to provide for endless compassion. In the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219, the Apex Court has held that for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Paragraph Nos.32 to 35 of Debabrata Tiwari (supra) are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge: i. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e., to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. ii. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. iii. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. iv. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. v. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal Page No.# 6/7 benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other source. 33. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in a position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Having regard to such an object, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependants of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death of a bread-winner, has been overcome. Thus, there is also a compelling need to act with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning compassionate appointment because on failure to do so, the object of the scheme of compassionate would be frustrated. Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its significance and this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for consideration. 34. As noted above, the sine qua non for entertaining a claim for compassionate appointment is that the family of the deceased employee would be unable to make two ends meet without one of the dependants of the employee being deceased employed on compassionate grounds. The financial condition of the family of the deceased, at the time of the death of the deceased, is the primary Consideration that ought to guide the authorities' decision in the matter. 35. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, Courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Page No.# 7/7 Singh would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee.” 9. Reading of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, it is absolutely clear that in the event of prolonged delay, the claim for compassionate appointment becomes redundant and unnecessary. 10. In the present case, admittedly the father of the petitioner died in the year 2014 and the DLC rejected the claim of the petitioner on 27.04.2015. However, the present writ petition seeking reconsideration of the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment is filed after almost eleven years since the death of the petitioner’s father and ten years since rejection of the claim of the petitioner for such appointment by the DLC. That being so, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has become infructuous. Hence, no case is made out. 11. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant